Greed is good.

It motivates people.

>>37
My favourite keyword's incontrovertibleness. That makes me rape chickens.

>>38
Rape still doesn't buy stocks in the S&P 500.

>>>35
What if I don't want to obtain any wealth with greedness, just eat oyster and bath in caviar every f'cking day?

>>37
Rape is a type of sex. So what does that make greed?

"excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions."
That has to be a good thing.

Let's see what the antonym dictionary has for "lazy".
Busy. Working hard is a consequence of greed. If everyone worked hard there would be enough money to keep people out of poverty. Ending poverty is good. Greed ends poverty. Greed is good.

I thought you'd post the Wall Street monologue.

Unfortunately for your failed education, #43, greed CREATES poverty.  The modern system called "Hypercapitalism" doesn't build wealth anywhere near as fast as it redistributes it upward from lower classes to higher ones.  Instead of building up solid businesses without a constant emphasis on unsustainably high profits, Hypercapitalists merely do whatever it takes (illegal or not) to accumulate more dollars in certain accounts.  Those dollars can then be laundered in various fashions to avoid corrective actions like taxes (by government) and confiscation (by law enforcement).

In short, wanting more is perfectly fine ... but wanting EVERYTHING is horrible.

>>45
More bullshit from RedCream impostors. Look, RedCream is an idiotic loon. He doesn't have reasonable opinions, first of all, but more importantly, he's a supporter of hyper-capitalism and anarcho-capitalism in all it's forms. RedCream ADORES the excesses and inequities of the current system, and wants nothing more than to change this system so that these problems are accentuated.

Dude, if you're going to impersonate RedCream, try doing it correctly for once.

>>46
Sorry, I'm a complete fucking idiot, let me try again.

Fortunately for your professional level of education, #43, laziness CREATES poverty.  The modern system called "proto-socialism" doesn't build wealth anywhere near as fast as it redistributes it upward from the private sector to state monopolies.  Instead of building up solid businesses with a constant emphasis on providing the best service/products possible, the rapidly expanding state merely does whatever it takes (unjust or not) to accumulate a higher percentage of the GDP through taxation.  Those dollars can then be used to subsidise failed institutions to avoid corrections in the market like not making money (by competition to superior privatised services) and becoming redundant (by allowing people to choose whether to pay for it).

In short, wanting everything is perfectly fine ... but wanting just enough to keep you from starving is ridiculous.

Think of the children.

>building up solid businesses
The government is supposed to do that? I thought entrepreneurs were supposed to do that.

>whatever it takes (unjust or not) to accumulate a higher percentage of the GDP through taxation

Like raising taxes? Bush's plan for his legacy is to make his tax cuts for the rich permanent, and if the Iraq war wasn't going so badly, they would have gotten rid of the capital gains tax and the inheritance tax.

The entire point of socialism is to redistribute wealth from the top to the bottom. The left wing wants to do that, and the right wing wants the rich to keep all of the income they receive from their wealth (as opposed to income created through work). Some amount of bureaucracy and social services is necessary. Yes, this money is essentially taken out of the economy, which has a negative effect, but that's the sacrifice we make to have roads, police, and retirement packages for our senators after they get thrown out for bribery. It's just inefficiency in the system- it isn't some fundamental problem that needs a great revolution.

Run Greed, Run!
Greed '08!

>>48
The government ought to build up solid businesses with a high value:cost ratio. They do not do this as they rely on altruism rather than greed as motivation which is almost always much lower. As a result government businesses are the inverse of businesses, they are institutions which rely on the goodwill of their members for motivation and are warped by their greed. On the other hand private businesses are motivated by greed and the altruism of it's members is devoted to not committing crime.

The only services that absolutely need to be run by the government are law enforcement and the military since they involve power and must be run through representative government. The point of socialism is to redistribute wealth from top to bottom, but the effect is to drain wealth from the economy so that people are dependant on the state. Many of the services the state provides are simply monopolies the state jumped apon back in the day and has clung onto ever since to the point we are dependant on the state.

>>50
Okay let me restate that. No government builds up businesses, solid or not. Greed/ambition/boredom are always the motivations that PRIVATE individuals have when making and running a business.

When a government creates a public monopoly or supports a private one, it (hopefully) does so because the interest of "altruism" (that is, the public interest) outweighs the private economic interests. For example, if the transportation infrastructure were privatized, that would result in having a private company enjoying the economic benefits of collecting tolls, but that small benefit is nothing compared to society's need to have roads that are working so that people can get to work (this is in a few years from now, when your mom will maybe let you borrow the car to go to the mall).

>>51
The road system is fucked, the roads curve left right center. The Romans privatised roads and look how straight they were. In conclusion, when in Rome do as the Romans do.

>>51
Look how well the state keeps our highways and steam pipes up and running.

In communism if you wanted a job, instead of ignoring you one would be found for you. If you were incapable of doing the job you would be trained.

Not in capitalism though. Unqualified people are getting paid $30 an hour for sitting on their asses while people who are building roads, fixing cars, and harvesting vegetables are being shat on.

>>54
I think you'll find if we dropped minimum wage and welfare there would be no one getting paid $30 for sitting in their asses. All problems solved.